FEDERICO VALERA v.

MIGUEL VELASCO 1928 / Villa-real FACTS Valera appointed Velasco as his attorney-in-fact, with authority to manage his property [usufruct of a real property in Manila], by virtue of [two] powers of attorney. Velasco presented the final account of his administration for March 1923, and it appears that there is a P3k~ balance in Valeras favor. The liquidation of accounts revealed that Valera owed Velasco P1,100. They had a misunderstanding, so Velasco sued Valera, and the former won. A writ of execution was issued, and the sheriff levied upon Valeras right of usufruct. Valera sold his right of redemption for P200 to one Eduardo Hernandez. Hernandez conveyed the same right of redemption back to Valera some months later. One Salvador Vallejo, who had an execution upon a judgment against Valera, levied upon said right of redemption, which was sold by the sheriff at public auction to Vallejo for P250 and was adjudicated to him. Later, Vallejo transferred said right of redemption to Velasco, so the latter had the title to the right of usufruct to the property. ISSUES & HOLDING WON the complaint is equivalent to an express renunciation of the agency. YES WON Velascos [agent] purchase of Valeras [principal] right of usufruct at public auction is valid and legal. YES, since he ceased ipso facto to be an agent by virtue of his suing Valera Pertinent provisions NCC 1732. Agency is terminated: 1. By revocation; 2. By the withdrawal of the agent; 3. By the death, interdiction, bankruptcy, or insolvency of the principal or of the agent. NCC 1736. An agent may withdraw from the agency by giving notice to the principal. Should the latter suffer any damage through the withdrawal, the agent must indemnify him therefore, unless the agent's reason for his withdrawal should be the impossibility of continuing to act as such without serious detriment to himself. Ratio The fact that an agent institutes an action against his principal for the recovery of the balance in his favor resulting from the liquidation of the accounts between them arising from the agency, and renders and final account of his operations, is equivalent to an express renunciation of the agency, and terminates the juridical relation between them. Applying to the case at hand The events that transpired more than prove the breach of the juridical relation between them. Although the agent has not expressly told his principal that he renounced the agency, yet neither dignity nor decorum permits the latter to continue representing a person who has adopted such an antagonistic attitude towards him. When the agent filed a complaint against his principal for recovery of a sum of money arising from the liquidation of the accounts between them in connection with the agency, Valera could not have understood otherwise than that Velasco renounced the agency. In order to terminate their relations by virtue of the agency, Velasco, as agent, rendered his final account on March 31, 1923 to Valera, as principal. Jurisprudence De la Pea vs. Hidalgo Although the agent in his [aforementioned] letter did not use the words "renouncing the agency," yet such words, were undoubtedly so understood and accepted by the principal, because of the lapse of nearly nine years up to the time of the latter's death, without his having interrogated either the renouncing agent, disapproving what he had done, or the person who substituted the latter.